Flirting With Nationalism

Every individual can attain citizenship on birth, and this is the basic form of acquiring it. However, citizenship is not unchangeable (e.g, a Chinese by birth, can during his lifetime acquire a French citizenship, and lose the Chinese one). The new citizenship can be acquired during life and this form is called the supplementary acquisition of citizenship, i.e., it is acquired after birth.

Of all the supplementary methods of acquiring citizenship under the Law, the most interesting are: adoption, acceptance and the as yet, by law undefined method, which for the purposes of this text we will call transitional. Apart from this, citizenship can be acquired via international contracts (which will be of interest only when such contracts are concluded) and total adoption (which I consider to be a supplementary method, and therefore not interesting, as far as this text is concerned).

The three above mentioned methods of a supplementary acquisition of citizenship make the following contribution to the Law: 1. a slight terminological confusion, 2. the introduction of new legal institutions in the current legal system, 3. xenophobia and 4. flirting with daily politics (nationalism).

The accepting of citizenship (Article 10) foresees the possibility, that all persons who belong to the Serbian and Montenegrin nations, and have ``fled'' to the territory of Yugoslavia with the intention of settling there, make a statement (on demand) that they accept Yugoslav citizenship. They are not asked to fulfill additional conditions, unless acceptance is not contrary to Yugoslavia's international interests and security (and this condition is mentioned in the other methods of acquiring citizenship, so that it is not specific). A statement can be made before the competent bodies in the country, or Yugoslav diplomaticconsular offices abroad. This deserves to be dwelt on a bit. The persons concerned, must ``flee'' to Yugoslav territory, with the intention to taking up permanent residence in it. This means that such persons must fulfill two conditions: they must ``flee,'' and so practically find themselves on Yugoslav territory (enter it, live there; but why are they then given the possibility of making a statement in a Yugoslav diplomaticconsular office? Is this so that they can finish the job by pretending to be tourists abroad), and secondly, they must have the intention of taking up residence in Yugoslav territory (animus semper vivendi). These two terms constitute the legal meaning of the term domicile (domicile = residence + the intention of staying permanently). These persons must have an actual, but not registered residence in this territory in order that they might accept citizenship (whether the competent bodies here are capable of proving the existence of residence, is another matter). I would first like to know what the legislator means by the term ``to flee.'' Does this mean to flee to Yugoslavia, or does this term include the acquiring of the legal status of a refugee. If it is the first case, every person can flee, from anywhere, regardless of the citizenship they hold (US, Croatian, etc.) and for any reason (a dismal futurefrom the point of view of standard of living). If it is the latter case, then the person must receive the status of a refugee, and for this he/she must fulfill certain conditions in the country where he/she has citizenship, such a ``progressive'' political stand, national, religious or other reasons; (Article 50 of the Law on the movement and residence of foreigners). Therefore, the legislator must decide what he wishes, especially since the above described persons are not asked to abandon the citizenship they had at the time they were making the statement, which means that we are talking about a dual citizenship, which the legislator, allegedly, does not wish. Guessing at which persons the legislator is talking about, I underscore that I am not opposed to a liberal stand being adopted with regard to them, and in helping them, but I do urge a clearly articulated legal situation which would avoid speculations. As it is formulated, the stand cannot be defended by the argument of protecting refugees, for at least two reasons: 1. If refugees are protected, then all refugees must be protected regardless of their ethnic origin (which is not the case here), and 2. I don't know of one single international standard which imposes an obligation on the state that in protecting refugees, it must issue them with domestic citizenship under special regulations (the same holds true for internal regulations--see Article 55 and the Law on the movement and residence of foreigners). Finally, if we like to brag about our humaneness, and claim that persons of other nationality are fleeing to Yugoslavia (especially Muslims), why aren't they included among the privileged groups? Or perhaps, they will be if it is proved that they belong to the Serbian or Montenegrin nations? And finally, what proof is there that I am a member of the Serbian nation (name and surname, birth certificate; or to bring things to absurdity, a statement made by two witnesses).

Finally, as a supplementary method of acquiring citizenship, the legislator foresees one well known method--naturalization, and in three ways: ordinary naturalization, naturalization with special privileges and exceptional naturalization. All three forms can be the source of a dual citizenship, and proof of xenophobia.

Ordinary naturalization (the most frequent form) is available to foreigners who have a permit for permanent residence in Yugoslav territory. Namely, under the current law (Article 7 of the Law on citizenship in Socialist Yugoslavia), ordinary naturalization was open to all persons who had lived at least three years in the territory of Socialist Yugoslavia before they had submitted a request for naturalization. Where is the difference? It lies in the fact that approval for permanent residence cannot be issued to all foreigners, but only to those of vital importance for Yugoslavia. It can be issued to foreigners who have a close family member who is Yugoslav, or person who has already been issued with such an approval (spouse, child, parents), or if the foreigner himself is of Yugoslav origin, or is of vital importance for Yugoslavia (Article 39, of the Law on the movement and residence of foreigners). Compared to this a foreigner who does not have the qualifications described above, can live for three years in Yugoslav territory, (a condition left over from the old law). It follows that a much smaller number of foreigners can acquire citizenship under this law than under the old one (other conditions which are not mentioned here also have to be met, but they are all more or less well known and acceptable). Naturalization under special conditions refers to 1. emigrants of Yugoslav origin (when did they emigrate and does this mean that a Yugoslav nation exists?), and 2. foreigners who have done things of special merit for Yugoslavia (what does this mean?). These persons are not required to have lived in Yugoslav territory for three years (less still to have an approval to reside here permanently), nor to abandon their foreign citizenship, nor to have financial means, which is the usual condition for naturalization. Undoubtedly this solution leads to dual citizenship, and one can only guess at how it has been deserved. Probably thanks to the great patriotism of emigrants who do not wish to move to Yugoslavia, nor abandon their acquired foreign citizenship, in spite of the patriotic feelings they have. Or something else?

If the three previous points do not lead to the conclusion that the legislator has flirted with nationalism, then I have nothing left to say. Gaso Knezevic (The author is a professor of law at the Law School in Belgrade)